Judge restores Kunkle's appeals rights

A woman serving life without parole for murdering her ex-boyfriend in his Brodheadsville home plans to appeal now that a judge has reinstated her appellate rights.

ANDREW SCOTT

A woman serving life without parole for murdering her ex-boyfriend in his Brodheadsville home plans to appeal now that a judge has reinstated her appellate rights.

Monroe County President Judge Margherita Patti Worthington granted a Post-Conviction Relief Act request from Cheryl Kunkle, 44, who said she lost her appellate rights due to ineffective previous defense attorneys.

A jury in 2007 convicted Kunkle of killing Benjamin Amato, 52, in November 2001.

Police said Kunkle waited for Amato in his home and, when he arrived, pepper-sprayed and then fatally beat him with a blunt object believed to have been a baseball bat. His body was found days later after no one had seen or heard from him.

According to trial testimony, Kunkle admitted killing Amato to get him out of her and their then-2-year-old son's lives. Kunkle denied killing Amato, saying he must have accidentally fallen, and denied there was any bitter custody battle police said gave her a motive.

"Our ultimate objective is a new trial, but for right now the granting of the PCRA only restores (Kunkle's) appellate rights," said her current attorney, T. Axel Jones. "I now have to appeal the decisions of the (Monroe County) trial court to the state Superior Court. The Superior Court can then grant her a new trial if they feel the trial court's decisions were erroneous and prejudiced her case."

Worthington's order details the following history of Kunkle's appeal efforts:

In July 2007, less than two weeks after she was convicted, Kunkle filed a post-sentencing request for a judgment of acquittal and/or new trial.

After the trial court denied her request, attorney David Skutnik, on Kunkle's behalf, filed a notice of appeal, requesting a judgment of acquittal and/or new trial, in Superior Court in October 2007. However, Skutnik failed to file the actual appeal brief itself and Superior Court dismissed the matter.

Attorney Michael McHale later was appointed to represent Kunkle. McHale in December 2008 filed an appeal on grounds that the trial court had erred by finding there was sufficient evidence supporting the conviction against Kunkle.

McHale said the trial court also had abused its discretion by:

Letting the prosecution present a blood spatter report that had not been shared with Kunkle prior to trial, giving her no fair chance to prepare an adequate defense against the report's contents. Allowing one expert's hearsay testimony on a report by another expert not present to testify.

The Superior Court upheld the conviction, finding that:

The defense's evidence argument was more along the lines of a "proper weight of evidence" challenge than an "insufficient evidence" claim, and therefore didn't apply. The expert who testified on another's report was qualified to do so, being an expert himself. Kunkle did not refer to the blood spatter report's specific contents, or specifically show how not having the report prior to trial hampered her ability to prepare an adequate defense.

Kunkle later repeatedly tried contacting McHale to appeal the Superior Court decision in state Supreme Court, only to find he had left the area without notifying her and was no longer her attorney.

Attorney William Watkins was then appointed in January 2010 to represent Kunkle, but the Supreme Court later ruled Watkins had abandoned Kunkle after his repeated failures to file an appeal allowance petition.

Jones was then appointed in January 2011 and on Kunkle's behalf filed the PCRA request Worthington finally granted Jan. 14.